Babylon A.D.

ﾠ

The RNC convention was looking like a Pillsbury Dough-Boy family reunion, but then I came across interviews with a group of Black Republicans over on Huffington Post. Ariana (who, by the way, can REALLY dance. Had the pleasure of watching her at a DNC fundraising party four years ago...yow!) asked them what they thought about Obama's candidacy, and they gave thoughtful, measured answers (while obviously being aware of the irony of the question) that had to do with lack of experience, potential versus reality, taxing the most productive citizens, and so on. Good answers. It was interesting that the one talk-back to the video link accused her of racism: "why not ask white voters what they think of John McCain..."

ﾠ

Which was patently absurd. First, there have been tons of surveying asking racially-charged questions concerning this election. Second, if McCain were the first white man to run for President, you bet your ass there would be questions asked more pointedly.

ﾠ

Third, it demonstrates that the term "racist" is bandied about a bit too easily. As is "sexist." I mean, to note that a member of a group might have a special interest in other members of said group is just recognizing a truth of human nature. To suggest that membership, or birth into, a given group is a determinate in certain behaviors is controversial, but not necessarily hateful or bigoted. (Are black people more likely to like dancing? Are women more likely to be informed about spring fashions? Is suspecting both might be true bigoted?) The funny thing is that in both cases, asked privately, blacks or women will often express pride in their relative knowledge or capacity in these arenas. Make a public statement about such things, and WOW! Watch the fur fly. Of course, the reason is that categories have been used to limit people, and even after the fences have been pulled up, the lines of dead grass remain in the field. Even after you cut the rope, the elephant thinks it can't pull away. That's how psychological conditioning works.

ﾠ

Stating (what seems to me to be) an obvious truth: that women are better prepared for the care of infant children than men, doesn't mean that their roles should be limited to such actions, or that men can't or shouldn't learn to step up in that arena, or that technologies of birth control and infant care should not be developed. My view is that every human being should have the chance to rise to her highest good, to the full expression of dreams and hopes. But you don't get there by ignoring reality. You HAVE to understand gravity in order to build a flying machine.

ﾠ

The problem with looking at cultural preferences, or biological mechanisms is that some people will use them against you, or excuse their bigotry with it. And that is a problem. Expect members of any group that has been oppressed or limited by another group to have a serious flinch response. One way or another, everyone is a member of an oppressed or denigrated group (or perceives themselves this way)...or has been, or will be. And most of us are members of an oppressor group (or are perceived this way)...or have been, or will be.

ﾠ

We have to tread carefully as we try to undo the damage of the past, to approach a brighter future.

##

I am virtually alone among my political friends in not believing one side or the other is better. True, I think that different sides have more or less to offer to different constituencies. That's one of the things that makes a democracy (or, yes, democratic republic) interesting--the drive to compromise between these different groups. But I know of no objective set of standards, simply expressed, that makes Republicans (for instance) superior to Democrats, Liberals to Conservatives, or vice versa. No one can say that every time we've had a Republican president the GNP went up, or crime went down, or whatever. People always hedge and haw: "well, he didn't really adhere to our principles" or "the Congress wasn't behind him" or whatever, producing a maze of complex charts selectively high-lighting this factor and ignoring that one. And Liberals tend to make a little more money, while Conservatives give a litttle more to charity, and this group tends to have higher educations, while that group has a little less teen pregnancy. And those of rigid thought try to thread their arguments through the stuff that makes them look good, and ignore anything to the contrary. It's laughable, and predictable, and I'm surprised that adults don't get the joke.

ﾠ

The joke is that, rather obviously to me, when you can divide an issue into dualities, neither of which has a simple objective advantage across the board, you need BOTH of them to create a whole. There are truths on either side, and the people screaming at each other are like ants crawling across a silver dollar hollaring "Heads!" "Tails!"

ﾠ

They are, in my thinking, like a swimmer who insists that his left arm is better than his right, never noticing that he is swimming in a circle unless he uses both. Either side, in power too long (and there's a problem: everyone's definition of "too long" will differ, of course) will grow corrupt and complacent. When I cheer for the Democrats or Liberals, it's because I feel like Conservative Republicans have had too much power, for too long. I have no doubt that if Obama was in office for eight years, followed by another Democrat for say, one term, I'd start getting a little itchy for a Conservative revolution.

ﾠ

A case in point is the fact that I don't know a single person, Conservative or Liberal, who will admit that the media is in their pocket. Both sides think the media is against them. Since I have NO reason to believe either side is more honest, the only conclusion I can come to is that if you're standing to the left of a line in the sand, it seems to be Right. And if you stand to the right of a line in the sand, it seems to be Left. And all you'll do is amass the data that justifies your perception, and discount anything that contradicts your POV. It's a big, ugly joke, and to me, a game for children.

ﾠ

I get asked again and again what I'm really up to with the 101 program. There really isn't quite language for it. I can say "lose 20 pounds" or "double your energy" or "increase income" or "find love" or "decrease stress" and all of that would be true...but all would be merely means to an end. What I'm really interested in is waking people up, and helping them become adults. Being an awakened adult means taking responsibility for their results in all three arenas, and realizing that you are where you are in your life because of choices YOU have made. And recognizing that we are in a web of biological and social and spiritual relationships--and smiling tolerantly at the children who sit in the sandbox insisting that THEIR castle is better than anyone else's...and daily inspecting your own attitudes to see where you do the same thing. Because you do. We have to be constantly aware, like a drowsy driver on a mountain road taking micro-naps. Wake up. Wake up.

#

Want to know when I'm asleep? For one, ANY TIME I have an emotional response to the "Black Male Sexuality In Cinema" thing (as opposed to bemusedly noticing it) your host is sleeping. I'm being a Needy, Wounded, Abandoned child. Pure self-indulgence, because in those moments, rather than creating new paths, I'm complaining that I don't like the direction of the old ones. You're watching my wounds ooze.

ﾠ

And you, dear readers...how do you know when you are being a child, and asleep?

##

Saw "Babylon A.D." last night with Nicki and her guy. Wow, what a turd. I like Vin Diesel a LOT, and he was fine, within the limits of this confused, muddy, sub-par re-tread of "Children of Men." It was o.k. until the last twenty minutes, when it went completely to shit. What were they thinking? I don't know at all. But this story of a professional smuggler moving human cargo from Russia to America just couldn't figure out the story they were telling, and ultimately dissolved into a flurry of half-baked metaphysics and improbable plot twists. I could almost hear the collective audience groan "say what?" at one scene involving a missile, as their collective suspension of disbelief collapsed like a glass overpass in an earthquake. Wow. And Michelle Yeoh was in it, and you KNOW how much I love her. This was a gigantic waste of talent, and I put the blame squarely on the director, who had no coherent visual style to keep us locked into his world. Ugh. A "D"